Skip to main content

We can't historically erase a symbol of hate

Is it just me or does it seem as though 70% of this country's businesses were waiting for an awful incident like the one in Charleston, South Carolina three weeks ago in order to provide them an excuse to stop selling anything associated with the Confederate flag? Ever since Dylann Roof shot and killed nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston three weeks ago, it's felt as though at least one major business has publicly announced they'll stop selling anything affiliated with the Confederate flag. Amazon even went as far as to temporarily stop selling games pertaining to the Civil War, before they decided to backtrack and start selling them again. While I can understand many of these companies' decisions regarding the matter, I hope it doesn't reach the point where we pretend this chapter in our history never actually took place.

I, for one, think that the Confederate flag should be removed from all government property, except from museums. If one wants to fly the rebel flag on their own private property, then that's another matter entirely. While I'd never wave the flag at my residence, I also don't think it should be illegal to do so. Judging recent poll numbers, it seems that a growing number of people feel similarly. So, the real question is, how far do we take this? While I applaud my fellow progressives' call for having this flag removed at the South Carolina state Capitol, the symbol removed from a portion of Mississippi's state flag, and the like, I also worry about taking the matter too far.

The Confederate flag has long been a controversial symbol, which most Southerners feel is symbolic of their heritage and most non-Southerners feel is symbolic of racism and slavery (approximately 3/4 of Democrats find the flag at least somewhat offensive and roughly 1/2 of Republicans feel similarly, and this includes Southerners, whom tend to be much less offended by it). While I'm definitely in the latter of the two groups, I also think the symbol is somewhat necessary (in museums, textbooks, and such) so we don't lose track of our country's history, lose track of how we got to this point as a nation, and suddenly forget why we were offended by the flag in the first place. Some have called for a ban or the revising of films like Gone With the Wind and Forrest Gump due to some of the subject matter and symbols depicted in them, but what would that accomplish? There is at least one chapter to everyone's lives we'd like to erase, but to deny one chapter is to deny the full truth and leave one more prone to repeating past mistakes. Similarly, if we attempt to historically erase this symbol of hate, we'll leave ourselves more prone to repeating past mistakes. Slavery is a chapter in our country's history we'd all like to pretend didn't exist, but it did, and we'll be all the better off trying to learn and grow from that awful chapter than attempting to ignore it altogether. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...